bwcolor
Veteran
Unfortunately, Apple still refuses to put ESATA and Blu-Ray on their machines. Not much excuse since these are now well established technologies that would greatly add to the capabilities of these machines.
craygc
Well-known
Agree... my 2003 G5 Mac is more than capable today with no need to upgrade it in the foreseeable future - I can work 6x7 scans at 4000dpi / 16-bit in Photoshop with no problems. But you do need to understand the software-OS-hardware lifecycle interdependencies and manage the system not just the components.
agreenspan
Member
I have a 24" iMac and I had a 20" iMac G5 before that. They are great computers, and give the best bang for the buck. You mention that you will be using an additional monitor for photo editing. If you are a professional, or are doing critical photo work, this is important. As nice as the iMac is, it is well known to produce "prints too dark" because the screen is so bright. Using software such as "shades" will lower the brightness, but it also ruins the whites and contrast and drags any color profiles down with it. The screens are beautiful, and the glass makes everything "pop", with rich blacks - which doesn't help photographers either. I use my iMac for my photos - I am a professional artist, but only an amateur to semi-pro photographer. In the future though, I would like a Mac Pro, so that I can get a more accurate monitor.
Stephen.
Stephen.
cnphoto
Well-known
my 11 year old G4 Dual 1.25Ghz MDD Power Mac finally died recently, prior it ran Leopard and PS CS3 great, sometimes certain filters where a little slow and large files where a pain (by large, I mean 75MP medium format scans).
i bought a 13" MacBook Pro (2.53Ghz, 4Gb RAM, 320GB HDD) and run my Apple Cinema Display (older matte screen, not gloss) off of it. great setup, i can place the MBP under the monitor closed and use an external keyboard and mouse, takes up hardly any space. and i can disconnect when i want o surf the internet on the lounge. i have both screen colour calibrated and couldn't be happier. PS CS4 and large files are a breeze compared to what I was used to before though
comparing both calibrated screens side by side, they are very very similar. the MBP has s slightly higher contrast (of course) and deeper blacks, but nowhere near as bright and painful as it was stock.
i bought a 13" MacBook Pro (2.53Ghz, 4Gb RAM, 320GB HDD) and run my Apple Cinema Display (older matte screen, not gloss) off of it. great setup, i can place the MBP under the monitor closed and use an external keyboard and mouse, takes up hardly any space. and i can disconnect when i want o surf the internet on the lounge. i have both screen colour calibrated and couldn't be happier. PS CS4 and large files are a breeze compared to what I was used to before though
comparing both calibrated screens side by side, they are very very similar. the MBP has s slightly higher contrast (of course) and deeper blacks, but nowhere near as bright and painful as it was stock.
ed1234
Established
If it was 2 years ago,go with the mini, but now the iMac have a major overhaul, so get the iMac. If you get the mini now, my bet is a higher power mini will be out within the next 2 years. I prefer a seperated system between the screen and cpu, so if I were you I will wait.
amateriat
We're all light!
I think Apple regards Blu-Ray as the tail-end of optical-storage tech(and even moreso for movie distribution), as SSD technology gains a foothold. I somewhat agree about eSATA, although I think USB 3.0 is going to make a mess of SATA in general.
Then, too, I am still a FireWire sort of guy.
- Barrett
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
I'm actually scanning with my old 500 mhz G4 tower because it has a SCSI port to talk to my old Minolta Scan Multi. Both my computer are still great for scanning and Photoshopping as I've said. but they are too slow for basic web browsing and such, and can not be used with newer apps.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I'm running exactly the same set-up. But it is time to upgrade for me. The Mac Pros are just so expensive, however.
If I hadn't bought a rather expensive new monitor earlier this year, I would certainly be looking at the new iMacs. They are an incredible value.
photogdave
Shops local
So I went to the Apple Store to have a look-see.
First of all that 21.5" iMac screen seems absolutely HUGE in person! Holy crap! But with that big screen comes all that glass and the reflections were truly annoying. Granted, I don't have the same kind of lighting as the Apple Store but I do have a window and a light fixture I need to have on to see to type, so I think that glossy screen may be too much.
Looking at photos on my usual website I had the urge to rip the glass off the monitor because of the feeling that I was looking THROUGH something, rather than AT something. I guess I could get used to it but it was kind of disconcerting.
Secondly, the iMacs seemed to run pretty hot. When I put my hand on the top of the monitor (where all the heat is channeled out) it felt nearly as hot as my girlfriend's Macbook. Obviously I wouldn't be operating the computer with my hand on top of the monitor all day, but I'm still not really comfortable with hot-running machines (insert joke here).
Performance-wise the basic 3.06 ghz iMac didn't do anything faster than the 2.53 ghz Mac Mini, both with 4GB RAM, in the basic tests I did. The machines at the store aren't loaded with any heavy-duty apps of course, so all I could do was some basic iPhoto edits and watch HD video clips from Vimeo and with Quicktime. Both machines appeared equal in these tasks.
I did really like the Magic Mouse. It seems to be getting mixed reviews so far but I really liked how it handled.
So my mind isn't made up yet. As impressive as the iMac display is in terms of resolution, contrast and color, the glossiness might be too much for me. Starting to lean towards the Mini and maybe a second Samsung matte display...
First of all that 21.5" iMac screen seems absolutely HUGE in person! Holy crap! But with that big screen comes all that glass and the reflections were truly annoying. Granted, I don't have the same kind of lighting as the Apple Store but I do have a window and a light fixture I need to have on to see to type, so I think that glossy screen may be too much.
Looking at photos on my usual website I had the urge to rip the glass off the monitor because of the feeling that I was looking THROUGH something, rather than AT something. I guess I could get used to it but it was kind of disconcerting.
Secondly, the iMacs seemed to run pretty hot. When I put my hand on the top of the monitor (where all the heat is channeled out) it felt nearly as hot as my girlfriend's Macbook. Obviously I wouldn't be operating the computer with my hand on top of the monitor all day, but I'm still not really comfortable with hot-running machines (insert joke here).
Performance-wise the basic 3.06 ghz iMac didn't do anything faster than the 2.53 ghz Mac Mini, both with 4GB RAM, in the basic tests I did. The machines at the store aren't loaded with any heavy-duty apps of course, so all I could do was some basic iPhoto edits and watch HD video clips from Vimeo and with Quicktime. Both machines appeared equal in these tasks.
I did really like the Magic Mouse. It seems to be getting mixed reviews so far but I really liked how it handled.
So my mind isn't made up yet. As impressive as the iMac display is in terms of resolution, contrast and color, the glossiness might be too much for me. Starting to lean towards the Mini and maybe a second Samsung matte display...
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I have two Mac Mini's and they are absolutely bargains to use. Even if I upgrade every 3 years I can still use the keyboard, mouse and monitor for many more years. This is why I won't buy an iMac: Not very environmentally friendly.
bwcolor
Veteran
Yesterday morning I ordered a 21.5" iMac from B&H (won't ship for a few days), but I won't be using it for photo editing. I ordered the environmentally friendly version with the Al Gore sticker on it.
The iMac is the power champ but I don't use my iMacs for photos, so I didn't consider the reflective screens. Choosing just the right screen for your tastes seems like a big plus, but good photo-editing screens are very expensive. I have an old Lacie Electron22blueIV for such use with my photo/video editing setup, but my HannsG 27" from Costco is what I spend most of my time staring at. I turn on the Lacie for final color/contrast/brightness adjustments and have the whole thing calibrated from screen to printer. If you are going to pay attention to the screen, things can get a bit expensive..fast. That is why I haven't spent the money for a new flat screen photo monitor.
The iMac is the power champ but I don't use my iMacs for photos, so I didn't consider the reflective screens. Choosing just the right screen for your tastes seems like a big plus, but good photo-editing screens are very expensive. I have an old Lacie Electron22blueIV for such use with my photo/video editing setup, but my HannsG 27" from Costco is what I spend most of my time staring at. I turn on the Lacie for final color/contrast/brightness adjustments and have the whole thing calibrated from screen to printer. If you are going to pay attention to the screen, things can get a bit expensive..fast. That is why I haven't spent the money for a new flat screen photo monitor.
amateriat
We're all light!
I will say that the glossy screens Apple has favored of late rub me the wrong way. too, but there are aftermarket solutions to this.
Performance-wise, if you have enough RAM, the difference in processor speed may be more or less a wash. But I recommend maxing the mini (wow, that sounds funny...) out to a full 4GB if you're going to be swinging large files to-and-fro. (I manage fine with 2GB, but I'm running Tiger on a late-generation (and dual-processor) G4; Leopard (and Snow Leopard) require more overhead, and each succeeding version of Photoshop seems to want a bit more RAM as well.
Speaking of minis, I'm taking apart a client's right now, to upade the hard drive (from a slow, poky and mostly-stuffed 40GB to a faster 250GB). iMacs have never been fun to take apart, save for the very first iMac G5. But minis are "character-building" in their own way if you ever decide to do a DIY upgrade.
- Barrett
Performance-wise, if you have enough RAM, the difference in processor speed may be more or less a wash. But I recommend maxing the mini (wow, that sounds funny...) out to a full 4GB if you're going to be swinging large files to-and-fro. (I manage fine with 2GB, but I'm running Tiger on a late-generation (and dual-processor) G4; Leopard (and Snow Leopard) require more overhead, and each succeeding version of Photoshop seems to want a bit more RAM as well.
Speaking of minis, I'm taking apart a client's right now, to upade the hard drive (from a slow, poky and mostly-stuffed 40GB to a faster 250GB). iMacs have never been fun to take apart, save for the very first iMac G5. But minis are "character-building" in their own way if you ever decide to do a DIY upgrade.
- Barrett
Mephiloco
Well-known
I built a quadcore pc and dual boot between OS X and Windows depending on what the situation calls for. I'm not limited to the older hardware apple uses, nor do I have to pay a premium for old hardware. The box is now around 2 years old and still performs as least as good as the current iMacs and Mac Pro's while having better hardware and costing less.
Getting Apple hardware wasn't really a choice for me as apple likes to force hardware upgrades to keep sales up by imposing hardware checks, like with the new final cut studio (apple decided at the last minute to make it Intel only and imposed a hardware check, which can luckily be circumvented easily). There was also the issue with apple dropping essentially all SCSI support going into 10.5. Also the lack of eSATA, the lack of expandability (even with the Mac Pro 2 hd max).
Of your two choices I would go with the MiniMac. Displays fade over time and nearly all the apple displays I worked with experienced terrible ghosting and dimming after about 3 years. I'd prefer to replace the display than the whole computer. I'd also go with the minimac because when you upgrade following this new acquisition, it'll be much easier to still use the minimac. It could easily become a HTPC, a server, etc whereas the iMac could be in fine working order but unfortunately have a bad display, making it essentially useless as the repair would cost as much as the whole iMac is worth. You could always plug up an external monitor, but that would just be annoying.
So yeah, if you have to buy apple hardware, I'd go with a MacMini.
Getting Apple hardware wasn't really a choice for me as apple likes to force hardware upgrades to keep sales up by imposing hardware checks, like with the new final cut studio (apple decided at the last minute to make it Intel only and imposed a hardware check, which can luckily be circumvented easily). There was also the issue with apple dropping essentially all SCSI support going into 10.5. Also the lack of eSATA, the lack of expandability (even with the Mac Pro 2 hd max).
Of your two choices I would go with the MiniMac. Displays fade over time and nearly all the apple displays I worked with experienced terrible ghosting and dimming after about 3 years. I'd prefer to replace the display than the whole computer. I'd also go with the minimac because when you upgrade following this new acquisition, it'll be much easier to still use the minimac. It could easily become a HTPC, a server, etc whereas the iMac could be in fine working order but unfortunately have a bad display, making it essentially useless as the repair would cost as much as the whole iMac is worth. You could always plug up an external monitor, but that would just be annoying.
So yeah, if you have to buy apple hardware, I'd go with a MacMini.
photogdave
Shops local
Yes, this is why I still keep a G4 tower to operate my Minolta scanner.
This is a very good point you make. At work I have a G4 iMac with a flat screen that is about 5 years old and the display still seems fine. But we also have a quad core tower with a 2006 30" cine display that is definitely showing ghosting and fading. Our previous 22" studio display didn't fare much better. You never know when it's going to be a problem.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
although the fading screen is an issue, new iMacs are fitted with LED screens, which have not been in use for three years. Nothing sensible to conclude about ghosting and brightness there yet.
IMHO you would do best to buy the Mac Mini now and if in a couple of years the LED displays turn out to be very durable, you can always switch to the iMac. Possible premium: the LED displays might have gotten cheaper by then, too!
IMHO you would do best to buy the Mac Mini now and if in a couple of years the LED displays turn out to be very durable, you can always switch to the iMac. Possible premium: the LED displays might have gotten cheaper by then, too!
abumac
Well-known
I have had all kinds of Macs. The first iMac, several G3, G4 and today we have 2 minis and an iMac. I prefere the Mini. It is a really good and fast-working computer. You can take it with you if you need and you can buy a screen at your own convinience. And if you change the computer in a few years you still can keep the screen, keyboard, etc. Go for a MiniMac.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Do you want a very big hi-rez monitor? then get the iMac but the bigger one.
If you don't want that monitor, makes no sense to get the iMac sinfce you have a monitor already that suits your needs.
If you don't want that monitor, makes no sense to get the iMac sinfce you have a monitor already that suits your needs.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
As a bifocal wearer, any monitor larger than 15" causes me to do the neck roll to use the whole screen, or to scrunch down my browser or app window so I can see it without moving my head.
So I'd be buying the Mini and use my current Sony monitor.
The all in one iMac is a better dollar value though.
So I'd be buying the Mini and use my current Sony monitor.
The all in one iMac is a better dollar value though.
bwcolor
Veteran
AL:
You are suffering from a poor choice of glasses and not a screen size. Get some professional advise on that one. There are lots of products that work great. I'm viewing a 27" screen with lined trifocals without any issues at all. Glasses are a tool, but you need the right tool.
You are suffering from a poor choice of glasses and not a screen size. Get some professional advise on that one. There are lots of products that work great. I'm viewing a 27" screen with lined trifocals without any issues at all. Glasses are a tool, but you need the right tool.
x-ray
Veteran
We have both Mac Mini and 24" IMac's in the studio (previous model). I love the look of the IMac but can not do critical editing on the high gloss screen. I have it perfectly calibrated but the high gloss give a false impression of sharpness and contrast making it useless for me to do critical work on. I just purchased a new Mini last month and purchased a new Lacie 324 to go with it. The speed difference between the IMac and MIni is of no consequence. Converting Canon raw files to 95 meg Tif files takes just under 3 seconds on the Imac and four seconds on the Mini. 1 second difference, no big deal! Both have 4 gigs of ram and I'm running Photoshop CS4 on both unde OS 10.6. I would have bought the IMac again had it not been the gloss screen. I labored over adding another gloss IMac until I researched monitors. I've been editing on Lacie 22" CRT's for the past six or seven years and just could not find a screen that showed as much information until I found the Lacie 324. I'm sold now on the Lacie and will replace another PC in the studio with a new MIni and 324 next year. I also have a Mac Book Pro that I bought last year. I generally carry it on shoots in the field but now use it to scan to with my Fuji Finescan scanner. Basically the Mini is the same guts as the Mac Book Pro and I regularly scan 1 gig or larger files to the Mac Book with no problems. I expect the Mini will perform the same.